That's right, now you can have all the same disregard for the environment (albeit virtual) that big oil does everyday! Why should they get to have all the fun?
Simply enter the web address of the site you'd like to contaminate and watch the spill happen.
Found in Presurfer
Now that we've had our fun, cleanup consists of pushing delete or left clicking the red x. Recent headlines suggest that the analog world's messes are more stubborn. However, like the digital world, they leave hidden copies and traces that are prone to resurfacing at the most inopportune time. In a roundabout way, this brings us to the crux of the post. I have seen some trial balloons on the net suggesting that corporations should have the right to vote. (so far, only national elections have been mentioned)
Before you dismiss the idea as the wet dream of power mad insiders, you might want to review the current tenor of our political discourse. Although the courts have been edging toward the idea of the corporation as a person (most commonly attributed to Santa Clara County V. Southern Pacific R. Co., 118 U. S. 394 (1886)) for quite some time, the current SCOTUS appears ready to lurch the last inch. Upon the discovery of a new legal classification would come the natural step of assuring the inalienable rights guaranteed in the Constitution; huddled masses breathing free, the downtrodden being admitted to the shining city on the hill, etc. A media ready slogan, perhaps "No Taxation Without Representation", and the bandwagon be rollin'. Pointing to the Constitution as being written by and for landowners and men of substance would provide an easy choice for the Originalists. (read: Antonin stare decisis when it suits me Scalia) Boy howdy, that would show them gov'mint elites we mean business. Unlikely: yes, a can of worms that will blow smoke in every direction: fer sure, impossible: no.
Going back to the recent corporation / money / speech decision, I note that one aspect is little remarked upon. The money spent on a candidate is taken from the profit side of the ledger. (Ford vs. Dodge Brothers) This gives the CEO and Board latitude to spend the stock and stake holder's investment dividends on a personal hobbyhorse. A few years back, there was a big brouhaha concerning Union leaders supporting this or that candidate. The manufactured consensus was horror at the thought of the poor working man being relieved of his dues to support someone he might not agree with. Change the scenario to a man in a suit and Granny Tilda's nest egg, and all's fine in the world. (that's not irony, it's chutzpa)
Current law protects the Board and Boss from any number of things, personal responsibility being a major one, answering questions concerning unwelcome results another. In our messy analog world, the best we can hope for is that the question of campaign spending, by a boss who probably has plenty of his own cash, is reflected in the stock's desirability.
No comments:
Post a Comment